Joshua Tree… good action movie from Vic Armstrong (his only movie directing), hes obviously inspired by Peckinpah here.
[quote=“chuck connors brother, post:2461, topic:1923”]Joshua Tree… good action movie from Vic Armstrong (his only movie directing), hes obviously inspired by Peckinpah here.[/quote]This may not be right but it’s something I heard. Joshua Tree is the softer version, for the full on violent version you have to see Army of One.
It was on Tv, wish I knew the exact running time… it was very violent, and it had the original ending (looked at imdb).
This might be the reason i was told that 
UK cinema and video versions were cut by 59 secs by the BBFC with heavy edits to scenes of violence and bloody gunshot wounds.
Breaker Morant 1980 - Bruce Beresford
My wife complains that I have a large DVD collection with lots of films no space to put them and even worst most of them I have not yet seen, well to a point she’s right more than half of my collection is just completist stupidity and nonsensical .
But sometimes all this have a meaning and that is to have films like this one in the middle of all the others, and when by chance I’m cleaning the dust (well I’m a little like Djvaso, don’t mess with my dvd’s, and I only borrow them to my sister ;D), or having for the thousand time a new rearrange, I spot this more unknown films, hey cool let’s watch this one.
This film it’s a true masterpiece in all aspects, acting, story (the dialogues are among the best I’ve seen in cinema), and image, all coming together to make a perfect film.
The story of hypocrisy in warfare, and of using soldiers of scapegoats as been told many times in cinema nothing new here, but the director did something that it’s not easy to pull out, he did not presented the three main characters of the film, like some poor disgraceful fellows, that were the victim of superior interests and the hypocrisy of the state, (that they were IMO) making us crying with pity, no such thing, he presented us like soldiers all different but soldiers, and that makes all the diference. This story can be transported to any war cenario in the 21th century, till today.
The film thank’s to the good work of the director, it’s presented to us like a book, all the acting is top notch Edward Woodward, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson all excellent (BTW Bryan Brown is one of the two actors that I think would had been perfect in any SW, the other would be Charles Dance), if I were a professor at a cinema school this would be a film that I would recommend for any student to watch.
Being an ex soldier myself this film it’s of large interest to me, wars can’t be fight clean, specially when you’re fighting guerrilla warfare, like was the case of the Boers War, (the word commando, from Boer commandos comes from this time), units like the ones of the three Australian soldiers that are being court-martialled in he film, were created to combat them in the same style, fire with fire, take no prisoners, of course when peace comes no one wants to be responsible, and someone must pay the bill.
Compared with other films (A few good man, Paths of Glory etc) this one it’s much better, once again the dialogue, the irony through out the film, it’s simplicity (there’s not absolutely anything not necessary in the film, no dead weight), the editing it’s amazing, the close-ups the final scenes, the way the flash-backs are put in the film, every detail (the uniforms, the guns the salutes) and more or above than any moral to be shown, there’s the story itself for to judge it, like said a perfect film.
Only a combat soldier can judge another combat soldier – it’s said in the film, and yes that it’s true, take notice this not so much one of those war it’s hell film, but more a film about war and men that fought it.
I’ve seen it first time in television a few years ago, liked and bought it to have it, and now from time to time I can see it to remind that good cinema, it’s like a good book, we read it one two, three or more times, because we do not want to forget it.
Oh I almost forget it the film it’s based in a true events, a must see 5 out of 5
I watched Samual Fulller’s Merrill’s Marauders yesterday. It takes its time getting going, and some of the acting is slightly stilted, not to mention the at times dredfully inapropiat patriotic music, but the action scenes have a real raw power, and the second half is excellent.
I know what you mean, I borrowed a movie to a friend of mine a long time ago and still haven’t gotten it back! Luckily it was only X-Men 3.
For some reason I have never seen this film
I don’t understand this myself, coz’ it’s a subject I’m definitely interested in
[quote=“El Topo, post:2465, topic:1923”]Breaker Morant 1980 - Bruce Beresford
If I were a professor at a cinema school this would be a film that I would recommend for any student to watch.
Oh I almost forget it the film it’s based in a true events, a must see 5 out of 5[/quote]
Yeah, I actually first saw it at school, i’ve seen it a few times now… I think its an amazing movie, tightly directed and awe-inspiring… 5/5 as well.
Watched The Unholy Four last night. I don’t think i’ve seen a WE release that I haven’t liked.
Cleopatra (Joseph L. Mankiewcz)
To finish off my Epic marathon, I chose this monster of a film. As with most of the peics I’ve been watching, it’s long, very long (245 mins) but interesting and the big budget scenes are amazing.
The 13th Warrior (1999, John McTiernan, Michael Crichton)
‘Not so good, not so bad either’ adaptation of Michael Chrichton’s novel Eaters of the Dead, one of his least interesting efforts, on its turn based on a medieval travalogue by an Arab messenger called Ibn Fadlan.
The ‘story’ is about an Arab messenger, sent by the Chalief, travelling north and visiting Viking tribes, eventually joining them on a campaign against some mysterious and agressive creatures, apparently descendants of the neanderthal men (the authenticity of this ‘non-fictional’ account has been disputed, for some very good reasons, most of it seems largely fictional).
Some good scenes, especially those involving Viking life, some graphically violent action scenes too, but marred by a miscast Banderas, who doesn’t look like an Arab to begin with, and turns in a laughably poor performance to boot.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:2472, topic:1923”]The 13th Warrior (1999, John McTiernan, Michael Crichton)
but marred by a miscast Banderas, who doesn’t look like an Arab to begin with, and turns in a laughably poor performance to boot.[/quote]
I’ve also seen this just a few days ago on TV
Well Carreras isn’t really the best of actors and own is Hollywood career to Almodovar.
But just a remark about him not looking like an Arab, the Arabs (not muslins, I can be an Arab without being a muslin) from the Iberian Peninsula or Al-Andaluz like the Banderas character of the film, came from of what is now mostly Siria, Jordania and also Saudi Arabia (but mostly the first ones), short after becoming Muslins, they defeated the Bizantine empire in it’s southern borders and conquered all the North of Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Libia etc the people that lived in those places were of Greek, Roman, Fenician, Cartago origins or direct descended, they looked more like the people from a lot of places in today’s Southern Europe (those conquest was indeed very fast, less than a century) when they invaded the Iberia Peninsula and conquered it by defeating the last Visigoth King (Roderig) the Arabs were indeed a mix of several Mediterranean People that have converted to Islamism, and not only pure Arab people.
In Iberia they created one of the most advance and progressive kingdoms of antiquity the Al-Andaluz, although the rulers were still direct descendent the original Arabian people (and gave them vassalage), by then they were a mixed of several people, this to say that the Arabs from Iberia (even more mixed with local tribes of Visigoths, and older Hispanic tribes and direct roman descendents) were no much different from the way we looked today in Portugal and Spain, and the Banderas character was indeed an Arab from the Al-Andaluz kingdom so he in that aspect he was well casted . One mistake in the film were the cloths used by Banderas, typical from the desert Arabic tribes, but they were not used in the Al-Andaluz (a common error).
Later (starting from the year 1000 more the less) and before the Christian reconquest the Al-Andaluz was conquered by Berber tribes that came from what’s now Morocco’s and the Riff region, and those are not Arabs at all they were Berber tribes (also Muslims) but very different people but that it’s another story.
[quote=“El Topo, post:2473, topic:1923”]I’ve also seen this just a few days ago on TV
Well Carreras isn’t really the best of actors and own is Hollywood career to Almodovar.
But just a remark about him not looking like an Arab, the Arabs (not muslins, I can be an Arab without being a muslin) from the Iberian Peninsula or Al-Andaluz like the Banderas character of the film, came from of what is now mostly Siria, Jordania and also Saudi Arabia (but mostly the first ones)[/quote]
You’re right about the appearance of the Banderas, didn’t think about that
By the way, I’m well aware of the confusion Arab/muslim: I speak some arabic (not fluently, but I can order a cup of coffee and make a reservation for a room - the thing they promise you at the beginning of the study of a foregn language) and therefore people often think I can also talk with people from Turkey, Iran or Pakistan.
There are a few questionable details in the movie. Banderas’ character is called Ibn Falad (which means Son of Falad); this is correct, but he calls himself also Ahmed Ibn Falad, but ‘Ibn’ is spelled Ben or Bin between two names, so he’d call himself Ahmed Ben Falad (think of Osama Bin Laden).
It’s also bizarre that he invokes his ‘Father’ when praying; a muslim calls his God (originally Rab in Arabic, the word is no longer used in common language) either Allah or something like Al-Rahiem (the merciful). Speaking of ‘Father’ is more Jewish or christian.
My Arabic teacher (also a colleague and a very good friend) is from Syria, actually he’s a former football player who played for the national team of his country
This is him, on the right, in red:
[/URL]
Again him, in the national squad, standing, third on the left:
This is how he looks now, the girl on the right is his daughter; she plays for the national Belgian squad -17
[URL=http://img101.imageshack.us/i/87161226719548722125104.jpg/][url]http://img823.imageshack.us/i/n1293137704300490564220.jpg/[/url]
![http://img823.imageshack.us/i/n1293137704300490564220.jpg/[/url]](http://img823.imageshack.us/i/n1293137704300490564220.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
Hell in the Pacific - John Boorman 1968
Well there are good films that sometimes I do not like much, this is one of them, a good picture no doubt absorving and with only a few weak points, Marvin and Mifune do excel in their acting, and in films that have little or no dialogue it’s always a chalenge for the director, but the build in tension it’s well made and the scenes and plot are wel made the characters frustation for not understanding each other, it’s on spot, the human behavier study it’s indeed well made, this also combined with a stuning fotography work.
The ending it’s comprehensible, athought I would do it in a diferent way, the altenative ending it’s even worst IMO.
So I do not like it Marvin Mifune, well one of those things thathave no logical explanation, I just didn’t like the film that much, maybe it’s because most probably in a real event, one of the characters would be killed by the other, and so there’s no point on the story or the same would have to be diferent, maybe it’s that.
In this type of movies apart from being a very diferent story (but in a sense of films with few or none dialogue) the best one I saw was Luc Bessom “Le dernier Combat”
Anyway a good film and yes both actor go very well in their parts, best Marvin performance, well he did fight in Pacific scenario of WWII.
I haven’t seen Hell in the Pacifik in a long time.
I remember the acting as very good, especially from Marvin. But the screenplay had a story only for a film half as long. And it was too much a message movie.
Much prefer Boorman directing Marvin in Point Blank.
Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick)
Stanley Kubrick’s final film is a thoughtful, atmospheric, well made, and deliberatley paced erotic thriller. It has been accused of being very slow moving. And I suppose it is. Many scenes go on and on. But I liked this. As what is going on is always fascinating. The slow pace gives it a sort of dreamlike quality which is what Kubrick was apparently after. It’s quite risque and isn’t one for the whole family. But the nudity (of wich there is a lot) is done in an arty way. Not an exploitive way. Well, it is a little exploitive, but justifiably so. Interesting film.
HELL IN THE PACIFIC was a big dissapointment, the movie starts too abrubtly without giving us the slightest hint about how those two men ended on that island, the ending is a bit stupid while the cat and mouse chasing game in the beginning drags on for too long.
Last two movies I saw were REC & REC 2. Weak mixture of BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and the EXORCIST, 2nd part was really lame.
Yeah I love it, felt a bit slow when I first watched it… but it got better on the 2nd view.